4 ms·

If Linux powers such large chunks of the Internet and many other systems, is this not an issue that would ultimately affect every human using such technology? A

If Linux powers such large chunks of the Internet and many other systems, is this not an issue that would ultimately affect every human using such technology? All those companies who have signed, including Amazon, are paying an extra amount, no matter how small, and ultimately it affects how the end user is charged, right? Or am I reading this all wrong?

fleitz 15y ago
Maybe... Amazon doesn't sell a lot of commodities and non-commodity goods are usually priced by consumer surplus, rather than cost. (eg. You're paying $5.00 for a latte because of the convenience rather than the cost of the coffee + overhead) Also, whatever tech they are licensing could reduce costs for the consumer. (eg. it's cheaper to license tech from MSFT than to re-implement major portions of the linux kernel) The issue is muddy enough that you can make a good case either way.
- jwhitlark 15y ago
  The main problem is that MS won't state what patents it believes are being violated, so the community can't evaluate that for itself. We just have to take their word for it. "No, really. It's for your own good."
- beagle3 15y ago
  The first paragraph is golden, but this: > Also, whatever tech they are licensing could reduce costs for the consumer. (eg. it's cheaper to license tech from MSFT than to re-implement major portions of the linux kernel) Makes no sense. "license" from MS does not reduce the cost of implementation. The cases discussed in the article refer to paying MS to use Linux. There is NO WAY that this reduces costs for the consumer. They did not get anything from Microsoft except the promise not to sue.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    Last time I checked lawsuits cost lots of money, this saves the consumer the expense of paying for the lawsuit. Whether the law should or shouldn't be this way is a matter for another discussion. The current reality is that getting sued for patent infringement can be VERY costly. Assuming Amazon is a reasonably rational economic agent they would probably choose the lawsuit if it had a lower expected cost compared to licensing the patent portfolio, or reimplementing the infringing code in a non-infringing manner. Thus licensing a patent portfolio reduces costs for the consumer, of course it could be argued that with out patents Amazon wouldn't have to pay, but the current situation is that we have patents.
    - rjbond3rd 15y ago
      > Thus licensing a patent portfolio reduces costs for the consumer... Maybe if you consider just one company, but in aggregate, isn't it just a tax passed on to the consumer?
- Tsagadai 15y ago
  It's actually pretty clear, Microsoft is extorting small players. If Microsoft had patents that were actually valid it would go after IBM, Intel, Google or Red Hat. They all have more money and use Linux far more widely and deeply. But Microsoft doesn't go after those companies because it would lose those cases. Microsoft is targeting companies without the power or will (it isn't their core business at stake) to make a buck off other people's innovations. I think someone should call Microsoft's bluff already.
  - dmoney 15y ago
    Microsoft could lose those cases even if its patents were valid.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      If a company with Microsoft's legal resources loses a patent infringement suit initiated by Microsoft, chances are very good that they deserved to lose. Besides that, a valid patent is not enough; they would need patents that are valid (meaning novel, non-obvious, and no prior art from academia or commerce), and infringed by Linux.
gxs 15y ago
Relevant: http://www.fastcompany.com/1560194/microsoft-and-amazon-sign-deal-granting-access-to-each-others-patent-porfolios http://www.fastcompany.com/1560194/microsoft-and-amazon-sign...

fleitz 15y ago

Maybe... Amazon doesn't sell a lot of commodities and non-commodity goods are usually priced by consumer surplus, rather than cost. (eg. You're paying $5.00 for a latte because of the convenience rather than the cost of the coffee + overhead) Also, whatever tech they are licensing could reduce costs for the consumer. (eg. it's cheaper to license tech from MSFT than to re-implement major portions of the linux kernel) The issue is muddy enough that you can make a good case either way.

jwhitlark 15y ago
The main problem is that MS won't state what patents it believes are being violated, so the community can't evaluate that for itself. We just have to take their word for it. "No, really. It's for your own good."
beagle3 15y ago
The first paragraph is golden, but this: > Also, whatever tech they are licensing could reduce costs for the consumer. (eg. it's cheaper to license tech from MSFT than to re-implement major portions of the linux kernel) Makes no sense. "license" from MS does not reduce the cost of implementation. The cases discussed in the article refer to paying MS to use Linux. There is NO WAY that this reduces costs for the consumer. They did not get anything from Microsoft except the promise not to sue.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Last time I checked lawsuits cost lots of money, this saves the consumer the expense of paying for the lawsuit. Whether the law should or shouldn't be this way is a matter for another discussion. The current reality is that getting sued for patent infringement can be VERY costly. Assuming Amazon is a reasonably rational economic agent they would probably choose the lawsuit if it had a lower expected cost compared to licensing the patent portfolio, or reimplementing the infringing code in a non-infringing manner. Thus licensing a patent portfolio reduces costs for the consumer, of course it could be argued that with out patents Amazon wouldn't have to pay, but the current situation is that we have patents.
  - rjbond3rd 15y ago
    > Thus licensing a patent portfolio reduces costs for the consumer... Maybe if you consider just one company, but in aggregate, isn't it just a tax passed on to the consumer?
Tsagadai 15y ago
It's actually pretty clear, Microsoft is extorting small players. If Microsoft had patents that were actually valid it would go after IBM, Intel, Google or Red Hat. They all have more money and use Linux far more widely and deeply. But Microsoft doesn't go after those companies because it would lose those cases. Microsoft is targeting companies without the power or will (it isn't their core business at stake) to make a buck off other people's innovations. I think someone should call Microsoft's bluff already.
- dmoney 15y ago
  Microsoft could lose those cases even if its patents were valid.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    If a company with Microsoft's legal resources loses a patent infringement suit initiated by Microsoft, chances are very good that they deserved to lose. Besides that, a valid patent is not enough; they would need patents that are valid (meaning novel, non-obvious, and no prior art from academia or commerce), and infringed by Linux.

gxs 15y ago

Relevant: http://www.fastcompany.com/1560194/microsoft-and-amazon-sign-deal-granting-access-to-each-others-patent-porfolios http://www.fastcompany.com/1560194/microsoft-and-amazon-sign...